Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Korapati Marthamma vs The State Of Ap on 11 October, 2023

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

       HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

                 WRIT PETITION No.9682 of 2020

   Korapati Marthamma, W/o Venkateswara Rao,
   aged    62       years, R/o    D.No.1-50,
   Narayanapuram village, Unguturu Mandal,
   West Godavari District.
                                                 ... Petitioner.
               Versus

   The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by
   its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Assignment-I)
   Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
   Thullur Mandal, Amaravathi, Guntur District
   and three others.
                                              ... Respondents.

Counsel for the petitioner      : Sri K.S.Murthy

Counsel for respondents         : GP for Revenue


                             ORDER

The petitioner claims possession over an extent of

Ac.0.46 cents of land in S.Nos.207, 208/5 and 216 of

Gundepalli village, H/o Chodavaram, Nallajarla Mandal, West

Godavari District by virtue of Patta vide L.D.No.36(B)/2007

dated 07.06.2007. Petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.5492 of

2020 assailing the notice issued by the Tahsildar dated

26.12.2019 invoking G.O.Ms.No.571, Revenue (Assignment-I)

SRSJ WP No.9682 of 2020

Department dated 14.09.2012. The said writ petition was

disposed of on 05.03.2020 in the light of orders passed in

W.P.No.4247 of 2020. Notwithstanding the disposal of writ

petition, since the respondents are meddling with the

property, the above writ petition is filed.

2. This Court by order dated 04.06.2020 directed the

parties to maintain status quo.

3. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 4th respondent.

It was contended that the Patta filed by the petitioner is not

genuine. Petitioner is treated as an encroacher and

eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Along with

the counter affidavit, notice dated 09.01.2020 issued under

Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act 3 of 1905 and

the order dated 01.02.2020 passed under Section 6 of the

A.P. Land Encroachment Act 3 of 1905 were filed.

4. Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned senior counsel

representing Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue

for respondents.

SRSJ WP No.9682 of 2020

5. Whether the patta filed by the petitioner is genuine or

not is a disputed question of fact. Normally, this Court while

exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, will not adjudicate the disputed

question of fact. However along with counter affidavit, notice

dated 09.01.2020 issued under Section 7 of the Act and the

order dated 01.02.2020 passed under Section 6 of the Act

were filed.

6. Case at hand in the first round of litigation, the 4th

respondent issued notice dated 09.01.2020 as per

G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012. Petitioner filed

W.P.No.5492 of 2020 and the same was disposed of on

05.03.2020. The grievance of the petitioner is that

notwithstanding the disposal of writ petition, the respondents

are trying to meddle with the property.

7. It is well established principle of law that reasons are

heart and soul of any order. The order passed by 4th

respondent-Tahsildar under Section 6 of Land Encroachment

Act 1905 does not contain reasons and in the absence of any

SRSJ WP No.9682 of 2020

reasons, the impugned order passed by the authority

becomes vulnerable.

8. In Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Masood

Ahmed Khan and Others1, while considering the ambit of

reasons, the Hon'ble Apex Court summarized as follows:

"(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is

2010 (9) SCC 496

SRSJ WP No.9682 of 2020

in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of instrumentalism.

(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber- stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.

(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37])

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".

SRSJ WP No.9682 of 2020

(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process".

9. In Kadiyala Sudershan and Others vs. Government

of Andhra Pradesh and others2, it was held that:

"6. A person in possession of the Government land is liable to be evicted under the provisions of the Act. The Act has laid down the procedure for evicting such person. As a first step towards this direction, a show- cause notice under Section 7 of me Act requires to be given to the person in occupation of the land. After receiving the notice, an order needs to be passed under Section 6 of the Act If the competent authority is satisfied mat the person in possession of the land is liable to the evicted, he has to issue a notice in the prescribed form. Though the provisions of Section 6 of the Act do not in express terms enjoin on the competent authority to pass a speaking order, the very fact that Section 7 of the Act envisages a show-cause notice pre-supposes that the competent authority has to deal with the explanation/objections filed by the person in possession of the land. Unless a reasoned order is passed, the person in occupation of the land does not know as to why an order of eviction is passed against him. Further, an appeal under Section 10 of the Act is envisaged by the Act Unless, the order contains reasons, the appellate authority will not be in a position to examine the validity or otherwise of the order and decide the appeal.

7. From the scheme of the Act, I am of the opinion that the notice of eviction prescribed under Section 6 of the Act, which is akin to a decree, needs to be supported by a reasoned order comparable to a judgment otherwise,

2013 (5) ALD 212

SRSJ WP No.9682 of 2020

Section 7 of the Act providing for issuance of a show- cause notice would be rendered nugatory or reduced to an empty formality."

10. A conspectus of the observations referred to supra,

since the order dated 01.02.2020 passed under Section 6 of

the Act does not disclose any reasons, the same is liable to be

set aside. Hence, the proceedings issued by 4th respondent-

Tahsildar vide Roc.14/2020(B) dated 01.02.2020 are set

aside.

The matter is remitted back to the Tahsildar, Nallajerla

Mandal for fresh consideration. The petitioner also shall

submit explanation to the notice dated 09.01.2020 issued

under Section 7 of the Act by annexing the relevant

documents, within a period of three weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. The 4th respondent-Tahsildar